Apostolic Succession

Discussion in 'Doctrinal Discussions' started by SueJLove, Jun 29, 2015.

  1. God bless yu brother as you continue to work hard to make your opinions acceptable. However it is a well known Bible fact that the word "unknown" is italitized in the chapter at hand and was added by the translators.

    I am sorry you did not know that fact as it confirms exactly what I said.
     
  2. If a man speaks in a language that "no one understands him" is that not an unknown tounge?
    For if it is known then they would be understood.
    In truth did the "ignorant and unlearned men" who spoke in tounges on the day of Pentecost was the langauges they spoke known to them? Not at al.
    Yet those who heard them understood it in their own langauges .
    Yet "in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries " How be it then can they be known unless there is an (true) interpreter.?


    in Christ
    gerald
     
  3. Makes absolutly not difference to me. I just quoted what the rules say.

    Now that you have by passed them by, I can say that speaking with tongues then as today drew more attention than the plain interpretation of Scripture as it gratified pride more, but promoted the purposes of Christian charity less; it would not equally do good to the souls of men. What cannot be understood, never can edify.
     
  4. Good thing I understand it.
     
  5. In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. It is not in the Manuscripts!
    In the King James Bible you see some words in italics. These are words that they had to add to properly translate the Hebrew/Greek into English. As we can see, they did not always add the right words. But they were faithful in that they placed the words that they added in italics so that we would know that the words do not appear in the original Manuscripts as such.
     

Share This Page